Ensuring Hassle‑Free University Functioning: Regulated Protest and Police Responsibility

1. Introduction

This case arises from an application by Rabindra Bharati University (“the University”) and its Vice‑Chancellor seeking directions against unlawful obstruction to the ingress and egress of university officials at the Jorasanko and Emerald Bower campuses. Dismissed employees, aided by outsiders and students, were allegedly blocking entry and even assaulting officials. The petitioners approached the Calcutta High Court under its constitutional writ jurisdiction for mandamus and protection of their fundamental rights. The principal respondents include the State of West Bengal (through its police authorities) and the intervenor representing certain members of the University’s Executive Council.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Justice Jay Sengupta granted relief in favor of the University and its officials. The Court directed the State to maintain a police picket and ensure immediate, unhindered ingress and egress for the Vice‑Chancellor, Registrar and other officials. It held that while peaceful protest is a constitutional right, reasonable restrictions apply within 100 meters of the campus perimeter. Any violation of these norms by dismissed employees or outsiders would attract appropriate police action. The writ petition was thus disposed of with these mandatory guidelines.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Indian Express Newspapers vs Union of India (1985): The Court reaffirmed the right to peaceful protest subject to public order and sovereignty concerns. Here, the Calcutta High Court drew from its principle that fundamental rights are guaranteed but may be reasonably restricted in defined public or institutional spaces.
State of West Bengal vs Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010): The Supreme Court emphasized that public order and law enforcement duties of the police cannot be abdicated. The present judgment echoes that rationale in directing proactive police involvement.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shukla (1964): Concerning the scope of writ of mandamus, it endorsed that a public authority may be compelled to perform statutory duties. The High Court applied this principle to enforce the University Act’s mandate and police responsibility.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolds in three steps:

Statutory Power under Rabindra Bharati Act, 1965: Under Section 17(3), the Vice‑Chancellor can empower the Registrar to institute such proceedings. This established the petitioners’ locus standi.
Constitutional Mandamus: The High Court, exercising Articles 226 and 227 jurisdiction, held that the State must protect the fundamental right of officials to enter public educational campuses. A writ of mandamus was appropriate to command the police to fulfill their statutory duty.
Balancing Rights and Restrictions: Recognizing the right to protest (Article 19(1)(a) & (b)), the Court imposed a 100‑meter perimeter restriction to secure institutional functioning. This followed the “reasonable restriction” doctrine laid down in Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India.

3.3 Impact

This judgment will serve as a guiding precedent in two significant respects:

University Autonomy and Security: Public and private institutions may invoke mandamus to secure their officers’ free movement, reinforcing administrative autonomy.
Regulated Demonstration Zones: The 100‑meter rule offers a template for delineating protest areas around sensitive public institutions. Future litigants and police authorities will refer to these guidelines to balance civic dissent with institutional order.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of Mandamus: A court order compelling a public authority to perform a duty it is legally obliged to do.
Reasonable Restrictions: Constitutional rights such as free speech can be regulated to protect public order, sovereignty, and the rights of others.
Ingress and Egress: Legal terms meaning the right to enter and leave premises without obstruction.

5. Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court’s decision in Rabindra Bharati University & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. establishes a clear framework: universities and similar public institutions have a judicially enforceable right to unimpeded access for their officers, and protests near campus must be conducted peacefully beyond a fixed buffer zone. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in enforcing statutory duties of the police while upholding constitutional freedoms in a balanced manner.